PL 10/15/1997 - 30849�
CITY OF FRIDLPY
PLANNING CONII�lISSION MELTING, OCTOHLR 15, 1997
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Savage called the October 15, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Larry Kuechle,
Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Dave Kondrick
Members Absent: Dean Saba
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Todd Bachman, Bachman's Inc.
� Ellen Beecher, Semper Development
Craig Christensen, Semper Development
John Kohler, Semper Development
Norma Swanson, Theisen B. Partnership
Art Swanson, Theisen B. Partnership
Bob Theisen, Theisen B. Partnership
Roy & Mary Loberg, 860 Overton Drive N.E.
Louise Bennethum, 368 66th Ave. N.E.
Marion Larson, 359 66th Ave. N.E.
Donna Gathald, 6429 Baker Avenue
Hank Koester, 6141 5th Street N.E.
Dean Olsen, 6730 4th Street N.E.
LaVerne Olsen, 6730 4th Street N.E.
Charlotte Happen, 6390 Monroe N.E.
Connie Metcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren N.E.
William Hogan, 365 Mississippi Street
Jan Hebeisen, 901 West Moore Lake Drive.
Brian Cluts, Eden Prairie, COSA
Gabriele & Margita Kirschner, 5851 - 6th St.
Jayne Kulus, 6730 Monroe Street N.E.
� Marcus Martin, 560 63rd Ave. N.E.
David Berry, 6965 Hickory Circle N.E.
PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING OCTOBER 15 1997 PAG� 2
� Donald Bennethum, 6111 Star Lane N.E.
Anne Hagen, 551 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E.
Patricia Andersen, 367 66th Ave. N.E.
�PPROVAL OF OCTOBER 1 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES•
OM TzoN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the
October 1, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICS VOT$, ALL VOTING AYg, CHAIRP�RSON SAVAG$ D�CLARgD
THE MOTION CARRI$D '�TANIMOIISLY.
l. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AREA #4 MEETING:
Chairperson Savage stated the purpose of this meeting is to
solicit your comments about the future of the City. The City is
beginning a process to update its Comprehensive Plan. Tonight's
meeting is one of six meetings which the Planning Commission will
be conducting to receive your ideas and dreams about the future.
It is not the purpose of this meeting to discuss ind�ividual
problems or issues you may have with the City. Rather, the
� Planning Commission encourages you to provide comments about the
City's future, and what goals you think the City should pursue.
Personal attacks on any individual will not be tolerated. Please
make your comments brief and to the point and come to a
conclusion in five minutes.
Mr. Hickok stated this is the fourth of a series of seven
Comprehensive Plan meetings. The first meeting was held July
16th, the second meeting August 20th, the third on September
18th. Our purpose is to establish a view of the future and the
Comprehensive Plan will serve as a guide to the dream. In 1976,
the Minnesota Legislature passed the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act. This Act was passed in response to the need for the
adoption of coordinated plans, programs, and controls by all
local governmental units and school districts. This type of
planning effort was deemed necessary by the legislature to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the
Metropolitan.Area and to ensure coordinated, orderly and economic
development. The purpose of the Fridley Comprehensive Plan is to
guide public and private land use decisions involving
development, redevelopment and preservation. The plan provides a
^ better understanding of the relationships between land resources
and development. It also reveals existing conditions and
forecasted trends in land use and public facilities. The Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION M8$TING OCTOB$R 15 1997 PAG$ 3
^ also acts as a stimulus for active public interest in the
physical, social and economic issues of the City. The data in
this plan reflects 1979 figures except where updated information
is identified.
Ms. McPherson presented a summary of the survey results from
Planning Area Meetings #1-4. Staff mailed 2191 surveys in
September with 163 surveys returned as of October 9, 1997,
resulting in a 7.4� return rate. Up to October 15th's mail, the
total surveys received for Area #4 is 189 with 8.6%, the largest
return rate to-date.
Ms. McPherson displayed a chart with the breakdown of age groups,
and length of residency. In Area 4, the majority of the
respondents have been over 51 years of age. Area 2 respondents
seem to be younger in age, perhaps newer residents to Fridley.
Area 2 also has more residents who have lived in the City for a
shorter period of time. Area 4 residents have lived in the
community for a longer time. Area 3 had residents living in the
area an average of 20 years.
^ Ms. McPherson stated the survey instrument was designed with four
essay-type questions: "What do you like about Fridley?" "What
do you dislike about Fridley?" "What do you like about your
neighborhood?" "What do you dislike about your neighborhood?"
The trend is to divide these issues into areas such as Parks,
City Service, Safety and Crime, Neighbors, Land Uses and City
Image and Schools. What people like most is their neighbors and
a friendly feeling. In terms of what people like about Fridley
is its location is convenient, to the freeways and downtown
Minneapolis, to churches, etc. City Services and Parks showed a
very favorable response. The Land Use category states people
are dissatisfied with land uses in their neighborhood or City
itself. Area 4 land use comments were regarding pawn shops and
apartment buildings. People are also concerned of property
upkeep and lack of enforcement of maintenance codes and housing
codes. Specific area comments from Planning Area 4 are generated
on the large maps in the lobby which include; the lack of
maintenance and upkeep and general image of University Avenue and
Highway 65. The fence issue received both negative and positive
comments. There were a number of surveys requesting additional
street lights in Area 4. Most comments were positive about their
^ neighbors but there were also comments that they feel isolated
from their neighbors.
PLANNING CON�lISSION ME$TING. OCTOB�R 15, 1997 PAG� 4
�, Chairperson Savage requested input from the audience about what
they would like to see in the year 2010. Participants are
encouraged to discuas their concerns about Fridley along with
solutions. Two questions are to be addressed. "If Fridley were
to be the ideal community in the year 2010 what characteristics
or experiences would you expect it to offer?" "What is Fridley?
What role or roles does Fridley play in the larger metropolitan
area?"
Ms. Dacy stated the next meeting is November 19th for Areas 5 and
6. All residents are invited to participate in any of these
meetings.
Louise Bennethum 368 66th Avenue NE
Ms. Bennethum has lived here since 1958 and has seen 3 proposals
come and go. Ms. Bennethum likes the Walgreen's proposal the
best, stating she is 300% behind this proposal. The property
owners have requested her input so she is here to share it.
Joan Olson. 6320 Van Buren
� Ms. Olson thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address
the issues. Ms. Olson likes Fridley and her neighborhood. The
Olson's have considered moving but have decided to stay in
Fridley. The use of residents' tax dollars for sod planted along
the bikeway on University Avenue is a poor use of money. Why
mandate plans and allow a development like Moore Lake Commons to
shut the lights off at 7:15 p.m.? There are 2 bars in the area
that don't close until 1 a.m. Ms. Olson would like to see the
City staff get together to update building ordinances. We have a
50's mentality in the 90's, for example, cluster housing. Ms.
Olson has hopes for the development at Lake Pointe, but is
beginning to doubt it. The City blew their chance to address the
image of the area by not lighting the causeway.
Ms. Dacy stated that she spoke with Ms. Olson over the phone.
Only one side of the lights at Moore Lake Commons were turned on
for energy purposes and she will follow up and contact Ms. Olson
with further information.
Paul Monson. 369. 66th Avenue
^ Mr. Monson spoke with John Kohler about the plan for Walgreens,
and he thinks it is a good idea to have just one store. No pawn
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOB$R 15, 1997 PAG$ 5
� shops can move in. The proposal has a lot of greenery.
Mr. Kondrick asked, Why are you opposed to a strip mall?
Mr. Monson stated the area is not big enough to have a strip
mall. If you put in more than one store there, you would reduce
the greenery area that will give our properties a buffer zone
between the stores and residential area.
Ann Hagan. 551 Rice Creek Boulevard
Ms. Hagan asked if the Commission will talk about the monopoles.
Chairperson Savage stated this will be discussed later in the
agenda.
Connie Metcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive
Ms. Metcalf stated in regards to the lights at Moore Lake, in
terms of energy conservation, Ms. Metcalf appreciates the
conservation effort. The weeds at Moore Lake are not as bad this
year as in past. Hopefully by the year 2010 the City will
consider cleaning up the weeds. Ms. Metcalf walks quite a bit on
61st Avenue, where the kids come from school ia very littered.
Perhaps a cooperative effort for the kids to clean up the area
could be coordinated. Also the natural area that the high school
faces is full of plastic and litter. Perhaps the City could take
some initiative on cleaning up. Frequently in fall and spring
the tennis court lights are on and could be managed with on/off
switches to save energy. Ms. Metcalf thanked the Commission for
the opportunity to have this type of ineeting and getting people
interested in their own city.
Jan Hebeisen. 901 West Moore Lake Drive
Ms. Hebeisen asked, Why this meeting is required by state and is
it part of a larger federal plan?
Ms. Dacy stated the meeting is not required by state. The update
of a comprehensive plan is required. All land use issues must
conform to policies of the Metropolitan Council. These series
of ineetings were recommended by Council and the Planning
^ Commission to obtain as much information as possible for citizen
participation. By law we are required to have just one meeting.
This effort is not a part of a federal plan. A long term plan is
PLANNING CO1�iISSION M6$TING OCTOB$R 15 1997 PAG$ 6
�"`� a typical approach to try to guide communities into the future.
Jean Ingebrigtsen, 5811 West Moore Lake Drive
Ms. Ingebrigtsen stated she misunderstood what the meeting was
about. She thought she would answer, "What do I like about my
community now or what don't I like?" For the year 2010, Ms.
Ingebrigtsen would like to think of Fridley as an oasis from the
big city and as a park area. She sees Moore Lake, the beach,
Islands of Peace, Locke Park as priorities and would like to see
Fridley though of in a community way, wanting everyone to wish
they could live here, rather than big buildings like Sam's Club
or other industry. Some suggestions include the guardrails on
Highway 65 are tacky. The state should take care of it and it
should be brought to their attention. The exit from 694 E is
dangerous. The traffic noise from the freeway is too much. The
traffic along her home from the school activities is excessive.
Coming from Central Avenue, it is dangerous to walk, perhaps a
silver marker should be installed on the white lines on the road.
Neighbors have requested a street light and it appears there is a
need for another. Marigold is also very dark at night. The
� fence around the Sand Dunes is often in dis-repair. The Sand
Dunes are as important as the park. Ms. Ingebrigtsen spoke with
a volunteer worker at the Sand Dunes who is trying to help
maintain the sand dunes. There are 162 plants growing there that
have been to identified. The high school puts their snow from
the parking lot there, which kills the plants. Ms. Ingebrigtsen
inquired, she noticed there are 3 flags flying outside City Hall,
the United States, Fridley and she couldn't identify the other
one.
Ms. McPherson stated a POW MIA of Minnesota Flag is flying at
City Hall.
Ms. Ingebrigtsen stated City Hall is not noticeable and is
difficult to find. It is a beautiful drive. How do you identify
this is the governing part of Fridley? Perhaps a sign is needed
on University Avenue and Central Avenue announcing where the
municipal center is located.
Chairperson Savage asked do you have something specific in mind
on how you would like to see as Fridley?
�,
Ms. Ingebrightsen asked have you been to Columbia Heights and
have you noticed the banners? Perhaps banners could be installed
PLANNING COI+�lISSION ME�TING, OCTOH�R 15, 1997 PAGE 7
�^� at the crossroads of University and Mississippi and Central and
Mississippi to identify where City Hall can be located. °
Ms. Modig stated yes has seen the banners.
David Gilbert 517 61st Avenue
Mr. Gilbert has lived in Fridley 41 years. People don't realize
the downtown was very small and along came Holly Center which was
an improvement as have many other improvements. Regarding the
fence, if you remove the fence what is there to protect them?
Others say the businesses can't flourish. Mr. Gilbert stated the
PA system is lousy as he can't hear what any of the speakers have
said. A new PA system would be a good improvement for the year
2000.
Tom Larson. 359 66th Avenue NE
Originally Mr. Larson came to support the Walgreen's proposal.
Mr. Larson has lived in the City for 3 years. He came to live
here because he couldn't afford to buy a home anywhere elae. The
^ neighbors and programs like the home improvement plan, the parks
and `49er Days make it a great place to live. From a development
standpoint, what is being done to let people know about the great
programs available? If we are looking to move into the future,
we need to let people know that this is a good place to live.
Mr. Larson wants to have the same opportunity as the rest of
these people here who are older than he, to have people his own
age to also have the opportunity to move to Fridley rather than
Coon Rapids or some other suburb.
Marcus Martin. 560 63rd Avenue
Mr. Martin would really like to see in the future the Sand Dunes
maintained, clean up the garbage and put up the guard rails to
prevent kids from riding their bikes there. The reason Mr.
Martin likes Fridley is, compared to other suburbs with big
houses and larger expanses of grass. Fridley has large trees and
they serve as a windbreak as well. Regarding the fence issue,
plant flowering bushes and trees to make a beautiful area and we
would have a beautiful barrier, making it seem that Fridley is a
nice place to drive through.
�� Ms. Olson asked the Commission what are we missing that we aren't
covering? What are you suggesting we should cover, population,
�
PLANNING CONIIrlISSION MEBTING OCTOBER 15 1997 PAGE 8
housing, public works? Do we know what other cities have done.
�
�
Chairperson Savage stated that is up to the individual. You had
some nice suggestions. If there are any more specifics, we are
interested in hearing about it.
Ms. Dacy stated other cities are also initiating their process as
well. Each may have a different suggestion. Our next meeting is
Novemberl9th. If you identify any additional or specific issues,
please feel free to come back or contact us. One more meeting
will be scheduled in December. Comments will be assimilated and
come back to conduct the same type of ineetings again. This
process will take 12 to 18 months.
2. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #97-07 BY
SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD:
To amend a previously-approved development plan in an S-2
Redevelopment District on Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 2, Rice
Creek Terrace Plat 1 and Lots District on Lots 13, 14, 15, and
16, Block 3 Rice Creek Terrace Plat 2, generally located at 6525
University Avenue N.E. A 13,000 square foot Walgreen's is
proposed.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
'OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYI�, CHAIRPLRSON SAVAGS DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PiTBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:15 P.M.
Ms. Dacy stated Semper Development Ltd., on behalf of Walgreen's
is requesting that the City approve a new redevelopment plan for
the northeast corner of University Avenue and Mississippi Street
in the Center City redevelopment area. The S-2, Redevelopment
District requires plan approval for any project within an S-2
area. In 1991, the City approved a plan which contained a
multi-tenant retail building consisting of 27,745 sq. ft. The
proposal before us is a 13,905 sq. ft. Walgreen's with
prescription pick-up window. The project area is 2.88 acres.
The single family site not included in the plan is located at the
northeast of the existing building on 66th Avenue.
� Ms. Dacy stated the site plan meets the typical requirements of a
commercial use; however, staff is concerned that the proposal
PLANNING CON�iISSION MEETING, OCT0B8R 15, 1997 PAGE_9
� under-utilizes the area of the site, and is not maximizing the
full potential for redevelopment at this location. The basis for
review is S-2 District intent is to allow for mixed use
development, maximum flexibility and to determine an acceptable
plan which is in the best interest of the City. For example, a
speaker stated he would not like to see a pawn shop in the area.
The City could prohibit a pawn shop. Permitted uses of area is
based on project review by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, the Planning Commission and City Council. The
existing building was built in 1965. The site was rezoned to S-2
in 1990 based on a plan which proposed a 28,230 sq. ft multi-
tenant retail center. In 1991 an amendment to the plan was
approved to permit a drive-through window at the west end of the
site to permit a 27,745 sq. ft building.
Ms. Dacy stated the Developer has met with abutting homeowners
requesting their input. Homeowner comments requested pine trees,
use of a wood privacy fence, removing some parking areas and
putting a fence on south side of the pond. Ms. Dacy stated the
City has received a letter from Scott and Annette Barrett in
support of the development.
n Ms. Dacy stated the site is located in Center City TIF District
#1 and staff concern is the area is under utilized. The large
parking area and prescription pick-up window dictates the
buildings location, therefore not leaving the best efficiency of
the site to increase the building for a partner retail use. The
possibility of partnering a coffee shop or book store was
discussed, but Walgreen's response is the prescription window is
important to the success of the building and therefore, are
reluctant to share the site. This is a smaller project than
originally approved. The application by Walgreen's is prompting
us to review the vision of the site. The petitioners are
frustrated by this. Market issues are changing and given the
recent construction at Christensen Crossing, there may be other
opportunities available to the City to develop a mixed use
development at the property. The HR.A recommended approval on a
3-0 vote with 2 people absent. HRA saw no reason to prohibit the
development. The Planning Commission will address the issue this
evening and the City Council on October 27. The 60 day deadline
is November 11, 1997.
,,! Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
'� the proposed plan revision to the City Council. However, should
the Planning Commission recommend approval of the plan revision,
PI�ANNING CONIlKISSION ME$TING OCTOBER 15 1997 PAGE 10
� the following stipulations are suggested. Compliance with the
comments of the Engineering Department as stated in the September
23, 1997 memo from Jon Haukaas. The petitioner shall execute a
storm water pond maintenance agreement to maintain the detention
pond at the north side of the site. A final landscaping and
irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved by City staff
prior to issuance of a building permit. The westerly right-in
right-out driveway shall be removed from the site plan and shall
not be constructed. A permit for the easterly driveway must be
obtained from Anoka County. The property owner shall agree to
execute an easement to use parking spaces on the site for a park-
and-ride site.
Chairperson Savage clarified the original project. It was a
Walgreen's, Burger King and how many other businesses?
Ms. Dacy stated yes, along with a video store and depended on the
types of businesses that would be attracted, probably 4-6 other
businesses.
Chairperson Savage asked if the City had done anything to
� encourage the development of this site?
Ms. Dacy stated this proposal has been the first interest since
the last plan in 1991. The City worked as best it could to
implement that project and a development agreement was proposed
and drafted.
Modig clarified, staff wants to reevaluate the site? Are you
saying you aren't ready for the proposal?
Ms. Dacy stated Walgreen's has filed an application and the City
is required to react to that application. We are in the position
of reacting rather than pro-acting. If you feel this use is not
appropriate, then your action is to recommend denial. It is up
to staff to present all the options. We question if there has
been a legitimate analysis done by the Commission and Council.
Is this consistent with what you want to see for the area? We
are in a reactionary approach. Is this what the community wants?
Chairperson Savage stated the surveys reflect the people want
amenities such as coffee shops and restaurants. How do we
� accomplish that?
Ms. Dacy stated you are in the position of having to react to a
PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEBTING OCTOBER 15 1997 PAGE 11
^ proposal. The typical approach is the HRA and Council reach a
joint agreement to redevelop the site, initiate acquisition and
take ownership of the land. We identify the vision and conduct a
request for a proposal and a developer steps up to take site
control to accomplish the vision.
Chairperson Savage stated the concern not yet stated by the
audience is nothing has happened since 1991. What we have is not
what we want. But we want to see something nice going in there.
Mr. Oquist asked is there enough parking spots to accommodate
more than Walgreen's parking requirement? If we knew that we
wanted to take control of this area, why haven't we been doing
that until now, when someone comes along with a nice plan?
Ms. Dacy stated, yes there is sufficient parking. The City has
been working proactively on the Southwest Quadrant which took a
long time to get through. The acquisition and Mississippi Street
issues took over 2 years. Secondly, the last 4-5 years has been
to initiate a changeover on the Lake Pointe Site. The City took
ownership back from the developer. We have been marketing that
� site in the early 90's and have been working with MEPC for the
last 18 months. We are seeing some success. These two sites were
directed to us by Council as priority. I think you will see an
initiation for the construction of this site and address the
iasues. At this point it is time to take a serious look at this
4th corner of this intersection to complete the puzzle. If you
feel it is appropriate you approve, if not, you deny.
Mr. Sielaff asked about the park-and-ride, are you taking space
out of the landscaped areas or share Walgreen's parking spaces.
Ms. Dacy stated approximately 10 to 15 spaces can be shared,
depending on the timing of Walgreen's peak hours. This plan does
not specifically identify those spaces on the plan. We would
work with the owner to preserve the shared parking spaces. Me.
Dacy cannot recommend an exact number of spaces needed for the
future.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the S-2 use intended to be flexible for
types of development.
� Ms. Dacy stated, that is correct.
Ms. Modig asked about the park-and-ride, does the homeowner lot
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEgTING. OCTOBgR 15. 1997 PAGE 12
� that is not included in this plan still not a part of the package
or will it be needed to accommodate the park-and-ride spaces?
Ms. Dacy stated, yes. If this plan is approved, that lot will
continue as a residential use. Another option is the City or
owner can petition a rezoning back to R-1.
The petitioner, John Kohler, Architect for the Semper Development
stated a 13,905 sq. ft Walgreen's is proposed. This is slightly
smaller than the existing building. The business will serve a
1.5 mile surrounding area as a neighborhood store. The project
does have a drive-through pick-up window to pick up a
prescription previously called in. This is utilized by elderly
and handicapped or parents with sick kids. Typically traffic for
a drug store is a slow trickle all day. There is not a high peak
time. The access proposed is will be signed as no southbound
access to University here. As the developer, we have talked a
lot with the neighborhood. They want a strong buffer between
residential and the businesses. The buffer zone will be larger
than the front yards that homes in the area have now. The
orig•inal plan proposed a fence separating residential from
� commercial. A 7 ft high cedar fence to follow the parking area
and have the green area on their side of the fence was requested.
Parking needs for a typical Walgreen's is 70 - 75 spaces. If we
eliminate a row of parking on each side we can increase the green
area and an additional row of pine trees. The neighborhood
reque�ted a different type of tree than the Willow proposed and
the developer is willing to address the request. The lighting
was also a concern. All lighting will be shielded away from the
buildings. The building will be face brick on all 4 sides.
There is no loading dock, a small overhead door and service door.
A truck will come three hours once a week. The only areas of
stucco are the overhangs and a large glass front. The
construction costs on this building are $72 sq. ft versus a
typical $50 sq. ft. Walgreen's is making a long term commitment
to the site. Part of the reason they would like to be the only
tenant is the maintenance. They want to be a good neighbor to
their customers who are their neighbors. Mr. Kohler requested a
show of support by raising their hands from the audience.
Chairperson Savage asked if this project is similar to the store
in Anoka.
Mr. Kohler stated the business is.similar in size, but this is a
building upgrade.
�,
PLANNING CON�lISSION ME�TING, OCTOHgR 15, 1997 PAG� 13
Ms. Modig asked about the store hours of operation.
Mr. Kohler stated typical business hours are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
There are a few that are open 24 hours but he is not sure this
location will be open 24 hours.
Craig Christensen of Semper Development stated the park-and-ride
is a new request since being approved by the HR.A. Mr.
Chriatensen isn't sure what the park-and-ride agreement was with
the first development. Semper Development is opposed to the
park-and-ride stipulation. If we work with the proposed plan, we
have 72 spaces and there is no extra parking for a park-and-ride
which would create an operational nightmare creating maintenance
and liability problems. It creates morning and evening traffic
in the neighborhood. It impoaes a public use on a private
property. A bigger parking area would be needed for a park-and-
ride. If the parking spots were signed in some way, obviously
people will park in other areas of the lot.
Chairperson Savage stated you realize that could be a stipulation
^ if we approve this request. The City is not looking at a strip
' mall but perhaps adding a tasteful amenity such as a coffee shop
or an upgraded bookstore. Apparently Walgreen's is opposed?
Mr. Christeneen stated it is not feasible as this plan is driven
by what Walgreen's requires.
Mr. Kohler stated the way the site plan works, it is a good
concept. If you knew that a coffee shop or bookstore will be
there for 20 years great. The history demonstrates that those
businesses come and go every 7 years.
Mr. Christensen finds it ironic the City wants a bigger project
but would propose the burden of the park-and-ride and then
Walgreen wouldn't have the option to expand their building.
Ms. Dacy stated both agencies have a different mission. The
park-and-ride issue was not appropriate to discuss at the HR.A
meeting and Ms. Dacy had spoken with Mr. Kohler on that
stipulation. The park-and-ride was a part of the 1990 plan, also
referred to as a kiss-and-ride. Ms. Dacy stated the City wants
^ to meet the demand for the future.
Mr. Oquist asked has the City considered using the Holly Center
PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, OCT088R 15, 1997 PAG� 14
lot for park-and-ride. Mr. Oquist would be opposed to a park-
� and-ride.
Ms. Dacy is not suggesting this development be penalized with a
park-and-ride. This was a stipulation in the 1990 plan. The
same stipulation would be requested for any plan. We are not
singling this property owner out. This issue is similar to the
southwest corner where we have an easement for an over pass or an
under pass.
Mr. Oquist disagreed. It appears we will jeopardize the green
area for the park-and-ride.
Ms. Dacy stated there is still an additional lot in the S-2
district. The traffic pattern they have is not peak so it is a
good share situation.
Ms. Modig asked, If we approve this plan, we eliminate that lot
not utilized in this plan. In order to do that and accommodate a
park-and-ride, we would have to acquire the property that we may
designate as R-1?
� Ms. Dacy stated there are two options. The City has the ability
to acquire or rezone the property as R-l. The petitioners
traffic pattern creates the ability to share. The way the
stipulation is worded provides enough flexibility for both to
work out an agreement
Mr. Sielaff asked about the existing driveway, staff recommends
taking it out. Why do you need it?
Mr. Kohler stated traffic will be able to make a left turn at
this area. This allows for easier movement of traffic around the
site. We plan to sign that you may not cross to south University
Avenue. We have heard from neighbors that at peak traffic times
this does back up making this the access point of choice.
Mr. Sielaff asked is there data available on the traffic
accidents.
Ms. Dacy stated additional research is required.
Ms. Modig asked, Why are you objecting to it if it is already
there?
�"�
PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING OCTOB$R 15 1997 PAGE 15
� Ms. Dacy stated there is more background traffic on Mississippi
compared to 10 years ago. When new developments are addressed,
we try to address problems. Mississippi carries a tremendous
amount of traffic. The City must decide we have a safety issue
and volume of traffic to address. I don't think it makes good
sense to continue its existence. Traffic will back up on site,
but that is the way it should be.
Mr. Sielaff asked about the additional S-2 lot, is it vacant?
Ms. Dacy stated, no.
Mr. Kohler stated the property owner has significantly improved
her home and has no intention of selling.
Mr. Sielaff asked, Can something else happen on that lot if it is
zoned as S-2?
Ms. Dacy stated, not without the approval of the City.
Mr. Sielaff asked is the product mix of this store typical of
� Walgreen's or will you do something different here?
Mr. Kohler stated it is your typical Walgreen's, it is not a
super store, a neighborhood store.
Norma Swanson, the property owner, resides at 361 Rice Creek
Terrace. Ms. Swanson has been a resident of Fridley for 38
years. Ms. Swanson's father, Mr. Theisen was invited to open a
supermarket here in Fridley. The Council turned down his
requests to build which resulted in the Red Owl. Mr. Theisen
felt that if you have a business in the community, you should
live in the community. Ms. Swanson has proposed numerous
developments that have not been passed. Each proposal costs
numerous dollars and it ties it up the property so we can't rent
it. A park-and-ride was proposed and the people do not want a
park-and-ride. Ms. Swanson etated, "I don't understand how you
can continue to put restrictions on this property. At the HR.A
the City stated this is not our #1 priority, we are working on
other things. Now we should look at it from a proactive rather
than reactively. This makes me very angry and the City has
suffered because of the tax increment they miss. The green area
� is beautiful. There is plenty of park-and-ride area across the
street. You can count on this nice, clean, reputable tenant.
Upkeep of this property will be taken care of. It is time to
PI�ANNING CON�lISSION ME$TING OCTOB$R 15 1997 PAGB 16
� move ahead as 2 am under court order due to a death of a brother
to sell this property. The park-and-ride is just another hook by
the City. The County has continued to nibble away at the
property. They are happy with the 2 pieces they have taken. It
is time to develop."
Mr. Sielaff asked does the bike path pass through this property?
Mr. Kohler stated yes, and it will stay in the same location.
Don Bennethum a resident of 6111 Star Lane represented Louise
Bennethum. Mr. Bennethum stated it is ridiculous to believe
there will be just one truck delivering to this location. There
will be beer, pop, and additional truck traffic other than
described. A house will be removed, one that was recently
purchased by Mrs. Swanson's son. There are 4, 75 ft. lots by 150
ft. deep. We are going to add 65,000 sq. ft. to this area, and
build a store that is slightly smaller than the current building.
Is that under utilization? As a resident of Fridley I am
opposed.
� Jean Ingebrigtsen, of 5811 West Moore Lake Drive stated she
� shopped at the Theisen family store. Ms. Ingebrigtsen
recommended the prescription pick-up should be located at the
side of the building instead of driving around the building.
What is your responsibility to Holly Center to Snyder Drug?
Competition is said to be good. I hope we take into
consideration that these two businesses will be located just
across the street from each other. It hasn't been your concern
that Snyder's will succeed. If they don't succeed, who will be
there?
Duane Hanson, a resident of 365 66th Avenue NE stated, of all the
options presented and turned down Walgreen's is the best we have
seen. Fast food, pawn shops don't look good. Our best option is
Walgreen's. Who wants to look out their window and look at the
back of Burger King. We have seen other Walgreen's well kept.
Let's have a development that will look good.
Patricia Anderson, a resident of 367 66th Avenue agrees with
Duane. The Anderson's have lived in Fridley for 11 years and
love it because it feels like a community. The point is the
proposal dresses up the corner and alleviates concerns of the
� people while addressing the concerns of the neighborhood. People
don't always look at just bricks and mortar but a business that
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 15, 1997 PAGB 17
� wants to contribute to the integrity of the community.
Paul Monson, 369 66th Avenue explained the current tenant has
peak traffic right after work, when people work out. Many people
are coming and going and there doesn't seem to be a problem. The
Walgreen's will have less traffic than that. Tom is in a food
industry, Walgreen is very competitive and he has no doubt that
Walgreen's will be stable in the community. Snyder's
will have to be competitive.
Louise Bennethum, 368 66th Avenue has lived next to this property
since 1958. There is a coffee shop right now and we clean up the
mess. Ms. Bennethum would like to see this plan go through.
This is a golden opportunity to give Fridley a good up front view
for traffic passing on University. Make your decision now. Ms.
Bennethum just put $60,000 into her home and would like to see
that green area to enhance the area for when she sells.
Bill Hogan, 365 Mississippi Street lives next door to project.
This developer has worked with us to make the project more
comfortable for my home. If you design the exit further west,
� that will bring additional traffic near the Hogan's home. When
people make a U-turn to get into the existing development, they
turn around in front of the Hogan home, flashing light into the
living room. If people are worried about the traffic back up,
then you won't approve a development at all. Right now people
illegally drive left to get out, or do a U-turn to get into the
drive right now. Because of the way it is designed, people drive
in the wrong direction on Mississippi to go east. If you have
� just one exit you double the traffic coming by my home.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the
public hearing.
UPON A VOIC$ VOTg, ALL VOTING AYB, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGg DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRI$D AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:55 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated he supports the project. If they accomplish
the landscape plan it will be an attractive corner.
Mr. Kuechle concurs with Mr. Oquist and sympathizes with the City
for having lost control. Mr. Kuechle recommends deleting the #5
^ park-and-ride stipulation and understands there is a need to
address the driveway as recommended by the resident.
PLANNINO CON��lISSION MEETING, OCTOHgR 15, 1997 PAGE 18
Ms. Dacy stated there was discussion of making a smaller median
and making a larger driveway.
Chairperson Savage agrees with Mr. Kuechle. The problem is what
we have in the corner is an eyesore. We want to see something
and the frustration is that nothing has worked out in the past
years. We do have a project that looks good and would be in
favor of it. However, Chairperson Savage agrees with staff,
there is room for negotiation with stipulation #5 . We should
look to the future as we may have mass transit and need to plan
for it. If we eliminate #5 does that leave us with Holly Center
parking as an option? ,
Ms. Dacy stated it is hard to predict what the implementing
agency will require. Similar to utility easement, we are
requiring designation for a use. The intent is to preserve the
City�s options.
Mr. Oquist stated he is concerned about the park-and-ride
liability. Who is liable for accidents and vandalism? If the
City wants park-and-ride, then the City should be liable.
n Ms. Dacy stated at this time mass transit is their responsibility
of Anoka County. Right now there is no liability issue and does
not anticipate the City going int.o the transit business or
operating a park-and-ride. However, it is appropriate to address
that issue and its impact.
Ms. Modig stated if we don't include stipulation #5 then it will
be considered at the time that we get mass transit. If there is
no easement in that area, then they wouldn't consider that area
anyway?
Ms. Dacy stated the two options available are the City would go
to the property owner to negotiate or try to identify another
site.
Ms. Modig stated there were other sites identified when we did
that plan many years ago.
Ms. Modig understands the difficulty for the City to react to a
plan due to time commitments. When we went through the plan in
1991 with the other businesses there were concerns with the
^ amount of traffic going in and out, safety and lighting. Ms.
Modig would like to see this happen due to the support of the
PLANNING CON�lISSION N�gTING, OCT0B8R 15, 1997 PAG$ 19
� neighborhood. The petitioner seems to be willing to work with
the City and neighborhood and compliments the new neighborhood
across the street. Ms. Modig recommends also to eliminate
stipulation #5 and the easements will have to be negotiated in
the future. If we eliminate the west driveway then all the
traffic will be near the residents home. Therefore Ms. Modig
recommends staff and the petitioner work to move the driveway
further to accommodate the right out.
i"'�
Mr. Kondrick stated he is not crazy about a drug store at the
primary intersection of the community. The advantage of this
plan is the nice buffer between the business and neighborhood.
The plan is before us. The park-and-ride will happen in the
future and Mississippi Street will be the spot for it but we need
a major hit for it. Transit is supposed to be on the east side
of the street. Mr. Kondrick concurs with eliminating stipulation
#5. Although he sees staffs intent. As far as the driveway, I
recommend eliminating the westerly driveway. The traffic can
stack inside the lot. Traffic can go south or north if they want
to. Mr. Kondrick will vote for the project with stipulation #5
eliminated and only the easterly driveway permitted.
Mr. Sielaff stated it is time to develop this land and sees no
compelling reason to have a park-and-ride as an issue.
Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Kohler if they would consider making the
easterly driveway a 3 lane drive.
Mr. Kuechle recommended removing stipulation #4 and suggest staff
and the developer go back and change the driveway.
Ms. Modig concurred, we need to address the wording of
stipulation #4 so staff and the petitioner come to an agreement
on the driveway.
Chairperson Savage stated let the record indicate that Ms. Modig
is opposed to eliminating stipulation #4 and that Chairperson
Savage is in favor of keeping stipulation #5 as the City should
have that option.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff to recommend approval of this request, ZOA
#97-07, to amend the project plan for this redevelopment and
�„� remove stipulation #5 from staff recommendations and stipulation
#4 be reworded so t�at staff and the petitioner come to an
agreement on the driveway, as follows:
i"�
/"��
�
pr.n�rNG CONIl�IISSION MEETING OCTOBSR 15. 1997 PAGB 20
1. Compliance with the comments of the Engineering Department as
stated in the September 23, 1997 memo from Jon Haukaas.
2. The petitioner shall execute a stormwater pond maintenance
agreement to maintain the detention pond at the north side of
the site.
3. A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted and
approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. Staff and the petitioner shall come to an agreement on the
driveway.
Seconded by Mr. Kondrick.
�PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYP, CHAIRPLR30N SAVAGL DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Dacy stated, this request will go to the City Council on
October 27th.
3. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S.
#97-05 BY TODD BACHMAN OF BACHMAN'S INC •
To replat Lot 2, Block 1, Walton Addition, generally located at
8200 University Avenue N.E. (north of Sam's Club).
Chairperson Savage stated the Commission will take the three
Bachman items for consideration together. Staff will present all
three items and discussion will follow.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARLD
THL MOTION CARRILD �1ND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OP�T AT 10:10 P.M.
Ms McPherson stated Todd Bachman requesta that the City approve a
preliminary plat entitled "Walton 2nd Addition". The proposed
plat is for property generally located at the intersection of
81st Avenue and University Avenue. The proposed plat will create
three lots; one containing Sam's Club, a development parcel for
Bachman's, and a third lot which will be vacant and may be sold
PLANNING CON�lISSION MEgTING OCTOB$R 15 1997 PAGE 21
� for a future use or by Bachman's. A 25,000 sq. ft Bachman's
facility is proposed. The petitioner is also processing a
rezoning request and special use permit for garden sales. This
request is a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the recently-
approved Walton Addition. The purpose of the replat is to "swap"
areas to create a better development site for Bachman's. The
proposed lots meet the minimum lot area requirement for the C-3,
General Shopping Center District. The proposed vacant lot will
contain a future use to be determined. The petitioner has agreed
that the use on the vacant lot will not be automotive-related. A
common storm water pond use and maintenance agreement will need
to be recorded against the plat for the detention facility
located on Outlot A, Walton Addition. Park dedication fees will
also be required.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request to
the City Council with the following stipulations:
l. Execute and record common storm water use and maintenance
agreement for Outlot A, Walton Addition against the plat.
�� 2. Park dedication fees shall be paid at the following rates:
Lot 2 (Bachman's) - $5,657.42
Lot 3 (Vacant) - $1,217.07.
3. Rezoning request ZOA #97-08, shall be approved.
4. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#9�-08 BY TODD BACHMAN OF BACHMAN'S INC •
Ms. McPherson presented the second request by Todd Bachman, to
allow a garden center or nursery requiring outdoor sales on Lot
2, Block 1, Walton Addition, generally located at 8200 University
Avenue N.E. The request is for a proposed 25,000 sq. ft. retail
facility with a 7,000 sq. ft. green house and 66,000 sq. ft.
outdoor sales area located at 8200 University Avenue N.E.
Ms. McPherson stated previous requests for special use permits
for garden centers or nurseries have required the integration of
these facilities into the main building. The proposed sales and
storage area in this request will be located west of and to the
� rear of the main structure. It will be surrounded on three sides
� by a fence. There will be gates for fire and emergency access
only. Customer vehicles will not have access to the storage area
PLANNING CONII�ISSION MEETING OCTOB$R 15 1997 PAGB 22
� and customers will use shopping carts to remove materials. A
cedar arbor will be constructed to provide shade to some of the
materials. Typical stipulations related to these particular
requests include no sales or storage in front of the building and
no outdoor storage of chemicals. The petitioner has agreed to
these particular stipulations.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council
with the following stipulations:
1. There shall be no sales or display of inerchandise in front of
the building.
2. There shall be no outside storage of chemical fertilizers,
pesticides or herbicides.
3. The plat request and rezoning requests shall also be approved.
4. There shall be no off-season storage of bulk inventory in
outdoor sales areas.
� 5. The fence enclosure and pergola for outdoor sales area shall
be built as designed to be architecturally compatible with the
building and building elevation plan dated October 8, 1997.
6. Building elevations shall be built as proposed on the plan
dated October 8, 1997.
5. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #97-08 BY
TODD BACHNIAN OF BACHMAN'S. INC.:
Ms. McPherson presented the third request by Todd Bachman to
rezone property from C-2, General Business to C-3, General
Shopping Center, on Lot 2, Block 1, Walton Addition, generally
located at 8200 University Avenue N.E. (north of Sam's Club)
Ms. McPherson stated this request, if approved, will comply with
the stipulation on plat approval, P.S. #97-02, Walton Addition,
which was recently approved by the City Council and completed by
McCombs, Frank, Roos on behalf of Wal-Mart. The rezoning is in
conjunction with a plat and special use permit request for a
25,000 sq. ft. retail facility. The rezoning request meets the
^ three evaluation criteria used to evaluate rezoning requests.
Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district.
PLANNING CON�lISSION ME$TING OCTOBER 15 1997 PAG� 23
�, Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and
zoning; and compliance of the proposed use with the proposed
district requirements. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request to the City
Council.
Ms. McPherson presented a video of the Bachman's facility located
at Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street in South Minneapolis. The
video showed landscaping of the parking area. Landscape and
design treatments proposed for the Fridley site are similar to
the Lyndale store. Ms. McPherson noted that the decorative
lights have the shepherd hook, and the rock face block at the
front of the building as well as metal flashing; green tinted
glass on the front and clear glass on the rest. The decorative
lights and banners are also utilized. Bachman's is proposing
extensive landscaping in the parking lot island at the Fridley
location. Green accent colors are utilized in the facility as
will be utilized in Fridley.
Todd Bachman and Brian Cluts addressed the Commission concerning
the project. Mr. Bachman stated the video did not emphasize the
^ detail and colors of the project. The store has a 25,000 sq. ft.
of retail, floral and gift area and a 7,000 sq. ft. greenhouse
area. The large atrium area is the main entrance to the store.
The smaller entrance is to the green house. The color scheme is
similar to the Lyndale store and has been met with great
acceptance. Bachman's business is one of enhancing the
environment and they carry that out throughout the facility.
Samples of construction materials were displayed. This store is
similar to the other 4 stores Bachman's has built over the last 7
years.
Mr. Cluts displayed the materials to be used on the building.
The base of the building is a Terra cota block and the green
metal accents is quite striking. The light poles and flashing
details are also made of the same green metal accents.
Mr. Sielaff asked about the parking lot, will it be similar to
the 66th and Lyndale facility? The only concern Mr. Sielaff had
was the expansive parking at Sam's Club and then another one
located next to it.
Mr. Bachman stated the proposed plan for parking is for islands
�� with plantings but not plantings between the cars. There will be
a total green facade with a well planted entry way with large
PLANNING CON�lISSION N�ETING OCTOHER 15 1997 PAG� 24
�^, trees, flowering crabs and Hackberry, a very finished look the
day it opens. Extensive landscaping in front of the building is
also planned.
Ms. Modig asked if Bachman's have any problems with the
stipulations.
Mr. Bachman stated, no.
Mr. Kuechle asked are we giving them anything that we haven't
given anyone else?
Ms. Dacy stated, no.
Mr. Hickok stated the integration in the design is the key. As
opposed to the other requesta for nursery or garden center with
outdoor sales in the parking lot.
UPON A VOICL VOTB, ALL VOTING AYls, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGL DECLARLD
THS MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:40 P.M.
^ MOTION by Mr. Sielaff to approve plat, P.S. #97-05, with the
following stipulations:
l. Execute and record common stormwater use and maintenance
agreement for Outlot A, Walton Addition against the plat.
2. Park dedication fee shall be paid at the following rates:
Lot 2 (Bachman's) - $5,657.24
Lot 3 (Vacant) - $1,217.07
3. Rezoning request, ZOA #97-08, shall be approved.
OTI N by Mr. Sielaff to approve special use permit, SP #97-08,
with the following stipulations:
l. There shall be no sales or display of inerchandise in front of
the building.
2..There shall be no outside storage of chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides.
��,
3. The plat request and rezoning requests shall also be approved.
/"��
�
PLANNING CONIl�lISSION ME�TING OCTOBER 15 1997 PAG� 25
4. There shall be no off-season storage of bulk inventory in
outdoor sales areas.
5. The fence enclosure and pergola for outdoor sales area shall
be built as designed to be architecturally compatible with the
building and building elevation plan dated October 8, 1997.
6. Building elevations shall be built as proposed on the plan
dated October 8, 1997.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff to approve rezoning, ZOA #97-08.
Seconded by Mr. Kondrick.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DLCLARLD
THL ABOVE MOTIONS CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated these 3 items will also go to the City
Council on October 27, 1997.
6. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDER.ATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
Z�'A #97-03. BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
To amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow wireless communication
facilities (monopole towers) in P, Public Facilities zoning
districts. The following properties are currently being
considered for wireless communication facilities: Recycling
Center site, Community Park, Edgewater Park, Commons Park, the
water tower located at 53rd and Matterhorn Drive, the water tower
in Locke Park, and the Wellhouse #13 site at 51st Avenue and East
River Road.
ION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
'ITPON A VOICL VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THL MOTION CARRILD AND THL P'OBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:50 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated in February 1996, the federal government
concurred on the passage of the Telecommunications Act. This Act
�,, impacts wired and wireless operators of telecommunication
services and responds to the impact of the increased competition
in the market. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves the
PLANNING COMMISSION 1�gTING OCTOB$R 15, 1997 PAG� 26
�"'�., authority of the City to regulate the placement of facilities for
telecommunication services but ensures we do not unreasonably
interfere with the industry. In early 1997, the City Council
placed a moratorium prohibiting the construction of new
communication and antennae array. The moratorium established
allowed the City to take a comprehensive look at the impacts of
the 1996 Telecommunications Act and establish acceptable antennae
locations. Since the moratorium was established, staff has
worked with a PCS consultant to get a clear understanding of the
technology, the issues, and to determine how many antennae
locations would be required to serve the community.
Mr. Hickok stated, after significant review by the advisory
commissions, the City Council directed staff to prepare an
ordinance regulating wireless communication facilities based on a
site-specific approach. The City council also retained a law
firm specializing in telecommunications to review the ordinance
and to assist the City in its preparation. Tony Mendoza from
Fredrikson & Byron will also address the Planning Commission
concerning legal issues. David Dolter will assist in answering
technical questions regarding the industry on behalf of the City.
^ Mr. Dolter is a sub-contractor who has served in the deployment
of over 250 sites and has also served as a city manager. Mr.
Weaver was also hired to meet with industry representatives in an
effort to understand their needs.
Since preparation of the original draft of the ordinance, Mr.
Mendoza and Mr. Adrian Herbst from Fredrikson & Byron have
reviewed the ordinance and have made significant improvements to
the ordinance. They suggest the City to create an overlay zone
(similar to the overlay zones for flood plain and shoreland
regulations) for telecommunication sites.
Ms. Dacy stated the ordinance proposes 14 sites as permitted
uses. The City-owned sites are the three water tower sites, the
Recycling Center site, Community Park, Edgewater park, Commons
Park, and Wellhouse No. 13 at 51st Avenue and East River Road.
The second area of sites is located in the vicinity of Onan
Corporation, Totino Grace High School, All Temp Storage on the
west side of Main Street south of I-694, the water tower facility
at United Defense, and the site at 81st Avenue and Main Street.
The privately-owned sites have been selected based on the
^ criteria discussed earlier, but they were not part of the
previous information process.
PLANNING CONIlKISSION ME�TING OCTOBgR 15 1997 PAG$ 27
�-�� Mr. Sielaff asked does the City have the ability to limit the
number of towers according to federal law? The only thing that
limits this industry is public demand? How many towers are we
talking about?
Mr. Hickok stated the City does not have the ability to limit the
industry needs. We have developed a plan based on the industry,
co-locations in an effort to provide for, and not limit.
The tower locations we have selected may all be utilized for co-
location opportunities. There are not 14 sites, but 2- 3
vendors per site.
Ms. Modig asked, how tall are the towers going to be? �
Mr. Hickok stated it depends on the elevation of the aite. A
monopole is 125 feet maximum. We do have some equipment already
in the community. The surge tower off Alden Way and the
McGlynn's building and the Highway 65 water tower all house
equipment.
Chairperson Savage requested clarification. Is the faxed
�.-.� ordinance is the one we need to review this evening?
Ms. Dacy stated yes. She presented the changes which include a
clarification of what would be permitted as nonconforming site.
The proposed ordinance is set up as an overlay ordinance. There
is a list of sites as "approved sites", rezoning them as eligible
for a wireless telecommunication. The third change is the height
restriction. The maximum height for a monopole is 125 feet. The
fourth change is on page 8 requiring an analysis to address
interference with public safety equipment. The fifth change
states a monopole should be designed so that it supports 2
arrays. There are other miscellaneous issues that were addressed
but to be brief, I have highlighted these.
Ms. Dacy stated the privately-owned sites were not originally
included in the original review process. The City will initiate
notification to the property owners, a due procesa issue does
need to be taken care of.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the people who place their equipment on
these sites feel 14 sites are enough coverage in the City of
r"�
Fridley?
Ms. Dacy stated staff's research indicates that these sites are
PLANNING CON�lISSION ME�TING, OCTOB$R 15. 1997 PAG$ 28
�--1� adequate .
Ms. Modig requested clarification on privately-owned sites, do
you need permission or do you just do it?
Ms. Dacy stated this is a rezoning situation. We would notify
the owner the site is being evaluated and they are welcome to
come to the Council and object.
Mr. Oquist asked, What about private properties and lease
agreement?
Ms. Dacy stated a lease agreement with private owner would have
to be initiated. The lease agreement is between the private
owner and the provider.
Mr. Sielaff asked what recourse does the private property owner
have?
Ms. Dacy stated they have the right to object, this is a zoning
issue. It is possible to approve a zoning over the objection of
�...� the owner .
Mr. Kuechle stated the property still has the right to say no to
the tower.
Mr. Kondrick stated if someone tells us to "go fish", then we
have to go somewhere else.
Ms. Dacy stated, correct.
Ms. Modig asked how many are located in public domain and why did
we go to the private sector?
Ms. Dacy stated the first seven are in public domain and the
remaining are in the private sector.
Mr. Mendoza stated the first issue to address was making City-
owned sites exclusive as they came into play under the
Telecommunications Act. If the City legislates, at some point
you may run out of City-owned property. We cannot prohibit any
deployment of wireless telecommunication issues. The City
would be discriminating in favor of itself for others to get a
^ shot at this revenue. We advised staff against making their
sites exclusive. There is also coverage issues which would bring
PLANNING CON�lISSION ME�TING OCTOH�R 15 1997 PAGE 29
i"'� in problems relative to section 704 of the Telecommunications
Act. The cities action could be interpreted as to prohibit the
ability to provide service.
Chairperson Savage asked are you aware of other cities dealing
with this issue?
Mr. Mendoza stated, yes my firm has handled many other cases.
This is somewhat of a novel concept that Fridley has taken. It
is a good concept, to select and pre-approve sites to support
wireless facilities and present it to the industry is not
something we have worked with in any other area in the country.
Mr. Sielaff stated, "I don't understand how this addresses the
interested parties that want to have a tower can get one. Why
put any private property owners on the list right now. Why not
find out if there is anyone interested who wants a tower?"
Mr. Mendoza stated that would be done through rezoning if their
property is not included on this list. One of the changes made
to the first draft is on page 4 allowing a conditional use
^ provision that if approved sites were exhausted. The list of
property owners goes to the issue of coverage. The map
illustrates the evenly distributed areas.
Ms. Modig asked, "Did these property owners say they want a
tower. If Grace doesn't want one, and I do. I need to apply for
rezoning, and if I get one, they don't have to have one?"
Ms. Dacy stated when starting out, the providers will tell you it
isn't governments role to determine coverage. The Commissions
role is to address land use. All the questions you are asking
such as what about the other sites. As best we know it, we need
to provide a good size number of sites. You are on the right
track. Council has to evaluate each application. Council may
disagree with eome of these sites and we would have to designate
others.
Mr. Oquist asked, "Have the private sites been notified that they
are on this list?"
Ms. Dacy stated no, we need to notify them prior to the public
n hearing.
Chairperson Savage requested direction from staff for tonight's
�
�
�
PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING OCTOBBR 15 1997 PAGB 30
action.
Ms. Dacy stated the role of the Planning Commission is to make a
motion to approve the draft received this evening subject to
changes they may feel are appropriate. It will go to Council and
subsequent drafts will be acted on. A public hearing process
will be initiated and will come back to the Planning Commission
in 3 months regarding the privately-owned sitea.
Mr. Sielaff asked will there be something going on that could
change the way we look at this in the near future.
Ms. Dacy stated the industry is changing very quickly.
Technology is constantly changing.
Mr. Oquist asked about being somewhat unique in determining the
sites. No one else is trying to do that?
Mr. Mendoza stated as far as he knows, those communities he has
worked with particularly because of the timing, and numerous
requests, other communities are reacting rather than taking this
type of approach.
Mr. Sielaff asked, "Is the FCC a rulemaking body and will the
laws change?"
Mr. Mendoza stated they issued several rules. �Most importantly,
the preemption of satellite antennas. This is an evolving area
of the law and technology. Before the law catches up, the
technology will have changed.
Mr. Beck, of ATT Wireless Services explained ATT's reactions to
the ordinances and explained the needs of ATT. Mr. Milke
determines sites for ATT. The ordinance is innovative and caused
ATT some concern but it is workable. The needs relate to the
technology. A system of a series of cell sites are necessary to
cover the capacity so everyone can utilize the technology. Each
cell site can handle a certain number of calls. The system was
turned on with 9 cell sites. Now we are at over 100 cell sites.
As the system matures we need more cell sites but at lower
locations. The location of each additional cite becomes less
flexible. The site is determined by capacity. A search area
will be identified. The search area will be very small. We will
need sites that don't fall within the 14 sites. You have added
additional sites and the opportunity to go out to the private
PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING OCTOB�R 15 1997 PAGE 31
^ sector, those are good moves. Our goal is also to serve a broad
sector of Fridley with the least amount of impact. We also serve
as a back up to the public safety issues.
Mr. Sielaff asked so you agree with the locations but need more?
Mr. Beck stated, we don't know about the private property
owners. For one or more provider, undoubtedly there will be a
need outside the designated site. We would also ask you to
consider, in virtually all communities we have been encouraged to
locate on existing structures. We can mount these on locations
with minimal visual impact.
Ms. Modig asked, how about impact? Will this interfere with
anything I have in my home?
Mr. Beck stated, this is only a visual impact. It has virtually
no interference with consumer electronics, and tHere are no
health impacts. It is a visible, line to site technology.
Mr. Kondrick stated, instead of more sites, why not have 2 or 3
poles on each site. Why the additional sites?
Mr. Beck stated, hopefully we will have one pole with multiple
users. We need a 25 feet vertical separation so the more height
you allow us the better. The issue is the location of the sites,
as the system matures we have a very little area where we need an
additional site.
Mr. Kondrick stated so we have two issues, coverage and capacity.
The number of sites is adequate, then the capacity needs to be
addressed.
Mr. Beck stated, the issue is we won't need 14 sites in Fridley
as one carrier. There won't be more than 14 for a,long time.
The issue is location. We are looking for flexibility to put an
antennae where we need it.
Chairperson Savage asked are you addressing this right now?
Mr. Beck replied, yes. We request the Commission consider
allowing as a permitted use, a building mount. To encourage us
^ to go on existing building and not build the poles. To avoid
paying for the pole, would be great for ATT.
PLANNING COI�IlKISSION MEETING OCTOB$R 15 1997 PAG� 32
� Mr. Sielaff asked, would providers have poles in other locations?
Mr. Beck stated yes. It is good to have enough height on a pole
to co-locate. It is a numbers game, we are co-locating more than
we have in the past. We have worked with 50 different
communities concerning these issue. One is to reduce the number
of poles and put them on buildings. You have a good start here.
By telling us we want you to go to one of those 14 sites, that is
great, if you want less poles, then put us on buildings. But if
it doesn't meet our needs, we wont go there.
Ms. Modig asked, is there anything in this document about the
buildings?
Ms. Dacy responded, no. We have identified 14 sites. Some
buildings such as the All Temp building on I-694 was selected
because of the location. At this point we are not recommending
the Commission amend the ordinance but to pass the ordinance
before you. If you would like to discuss the height issue we can
do that with Mr. Dolter.
� Mr. Beck stated, you won't see any new law coming out of what the
City can or can't do in this right now. However there is a lot
of pressure from the industry so where we are is where we will
be.
Anthony Segal, Engineer and Regional Operations Manager for US
West displayed a typical water tower with antennae. Other cities
permit mounting antennae on an existing structure. From a
building perspective, US West would prefer to mount on a building
rather than construct a new tower. The antennae can be painted
the color of the building to blend into the structure. When
buildings are wider instead of tall, the antennae is mounted on
top of the building. Screening can be placed to hide the
antennae. An example of an antennae located on a light pole was
also displayed. Antennae can also be located on top of a
transmission facility. Unless pointed out you will not see it.
Mr. Kuechle stated Fridley doesn't have very tall buildings. How
high do you want to get them up?
Mr. Segal stated we have buildings as short at 40 - 50 feet. We
� would like to see encouragement from the Commission to use these
facilities.
PLANNING CON�lISSION N�gTING, OCTOB�R 15, 1997 PAGg 33
�� Ann Hagan, a resident of 551 Rice Creek Boulevard NE addressed
the Commission with her concerns. Ms. Hagan expressed concerns
related to her comfort level on the tower from an environment
health point of view. We are more acutely sensitive as human
beings . Is that 50 to 100 watts per tower? The latest
environmental consultants when evaluating school locations looked
at the measurements of power in determining school locations.
Environmental consultants determine recommendations on radon,
prior land usage, method of building and concern of
electromagnetic field. They look for 60 hz power use, and
electrical equipment. There is a relationship between
electromagnetic field and childhood leukemia's. In Stillwater,
in determining the site of their new school, they determined all
the amount of power use. Minnetonka also hired the same
consultant to make these determinatione prior to building. Newer
books published since 1996 have chapters on electromagnetic's.
Ms. Hagan wants to make sure we are covering ourselves and
considering all the issues.
�
Mr. Hickok stated, David Dolter can speak to any technical
questions the Commission may have.
David Dolter stated, the City's review of sites ensures that the
towers are built in a way that they will minimize the aesthetic
affect. That is why we don't recommend using building mounted
antennas. The industry cannot tell you when they need to fill
in the blanks between the sites. As the number of calls
increase, they will need to fill in the blanks but we don't know
when. We want to minimize the clutter and be proactive.
Mr. Kuechle stated Mr. Dolter's statement seems to conflict with
what the industry is looking for. Why don't we want them to use
transmission towers?
Mr. Dolter reaponded�that he is not opposed to them using
transmission towers but they should be determined by the City.
These sites were determined to minimize the clutter. If they
want to locate on a high voltage tower, that is fine. But if
they want to be on a building, they should meet your community
standards.
Ms. Modig asked if we take this on the special use permit track,
is there a way to minimize the amount of time to process the
�' application and our need to make sure the impact is acceptable
PLANNING CON�iISSION ME�TING, OCTOB$R 15, 1997 PAGE_34_
,� Mr. Hickok stated the Agency Action Law requires us to react in a
timely basis. No, there is not a way to shorten the time to
process the application.
OM TION by Chairperson Savage, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close
the public hearing.
UPON A VOIC$ VOT�, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPgRSON SAVAG� D$CLARED
TH$ MOTION CARRIED AND THE P'OBLIC HEARING CLOS�D AT 11:55 P.M.
OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig to receive comments
from Mr. David Voss as presented by Ms. Hagan.
�PON A VOIC$ VOTE, ALL VOTING AYg, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLAR$D
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Chairperson Savage stated the comments have been useful and is in
favor of recommending approval of the ordinance to amend the
zoning ordinance and staff has done a great job.
Ms. Modig concurs and likes the fact that the City is dealing
,--� with this in a proactive way.
OM TION by Mr. Kondrick motion to concur with staff on ZTA 97-03
the amended version of the Zoning Ordinance to allow wireless
communication facilities as presented in the draft this evening
dated October 15, 1997. Seconded by Mr. Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGL DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Dacy stated the next hearing is scheduled for October 27,
1997 before the City Council.
7. RECEIVE THE MINU�'ES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING OF AUGUST 14 1997
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 14, 1997.
8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
jV�F.TTN('� OF SEPTEMER 8 , 1997 .
OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the
minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of September
PLANNING COMMISSION MEgTING OCTOB�R 15 1997 PAGE 35
� 8, 1997.
9. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16. 1997.
Mr. Sielaff stated the minutes have not been approved by the
Environmental Quality & Energy Commission and should not be
received.
10. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 24, 1997.
TI by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of September 24, 1997.
� � • _a� �iu���M
OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist to adjourn the
meeting.
�PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPBRSON SAVAGE DBCLARFsD
�.-.� THl3 MOTION CARRILD AND THF� OCTOBER 15, 1997, PLANNING CONII�lISSION
N,�FTING ADJO�RNED AT 12:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
� ' � �' � � ��-C-4�� ��C�
Debbie Kidder
Secretary to the Planning Commission
�
�
s
S I G N— IN S H E E T .
�1 PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, � Wednesday, October 15, 1997
��
�
�
�
�
S I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, � �nlednesday, October 15, 1997